On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 11:36:08PM -0500, Scott Walters wrote:
Because of the complexity of HA solutions and data integrity, I am not sure
the hobbit code is the right place for the logic. Similar to the database
backend, you'll open yourself up to a lot of potential debugging. I am a
keep it simple stupid kinda guy and I am reminded of a saying, "A man with
one watch always knows what time it is."
I'd rather see the hobbit tool improve monitoring, reports, and other
features that really matter. Let the HA happen outside of hobbit.
I do try to keep it as simple as possible. The loadbalancing stuff had
almost no impact on the existing code, and if at all possible I'll
isolate this in a separate module so a "normal" single-site setup won't
have to deal with it.
But I do sympathize with your point. You could build a HA Hobbit setup
today using standard tools - shared storage and standard failover
software like the Linux-HA tools - and perhaps that is the best way for
this.
I also believe you should only cluster/load-balance when one box can't do
the job.
That is the problem I was facing recently, so there was no way to avoid
that.
Introducing those complexities to increase availability are
usually counterproductive -- you end up taking your system down because it's
so hard to configure/maintain. And then it usually doesn't work anyway when
it's supposed to.
*grin* yes, this was clearly demonstrated in an incident we had last week at
work.
Regards,
Henrik